Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, briefly I would note that what we have been objecting to is precisely the denial to some cadets at the Air Force Academy of the very freedom that the previous speaker proclaimed.

No one has criticized anyone's profession of his or her religion. The animus here, the gravimen of this charge is, that other people have been penalized for it, and the Superintendent to the Air Force Academy himself acknowledged it.

Now, I apologize for prolonging this, and I would say that when the chairman of the subcommittee, the former chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) appealed for an end to the debate, he got acquiescence on this side.

Two Members on his side decided to prolong it. I wish that others had followed our example. But since they have not, I do think that things have to be answered.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would repeat what has been said before, but apparently with sufficient clarity, I guess. The one person, who more than any other, was penalized for speaking out in this matter, in defense of the principles that the previous speaker articulated was a chaplain, the chaplain who was sent to Okinawa in a punitive transfer, and I know people have said that the Air Force gave different reasons for that. I do not think anyone really believes that.

It is clear that she was transferred for punitive reasons, because she spoke out against what she thought was an inappropriate set of actions against people's freedom of religion. She was, as we said and is, a chaplain.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding to me.

And it is true. I grew up in Bayonne, New Jersey, in the gentleman from New Jersey's (Mr. Menendez) district. And growing up, Peter Rodino was someone for whom I had a great deal of respect, someone whom, as I thought about a political career, I admired enormously, living not far from his district. And then, of course, I watched, as did the whole country, in the 1970s when the impeachment went forward. I was then in the State legislature. I did not, as did the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from New York, serve on the committee during impeachment. So when I got here in 1981, having been elected in 1980, and got assigned to the Judiciary Committee, it was really a reinforcement to me of the kind of literally awe-inspiring role I had been lucky enough to take, having known of Peter Rodino when I was in high school.

Having watched him perform in that masterfully understated way at the most critical period in the 1970s, and then to be accepted by him as a colleague meant a great deal to me. And sometimes when we meet someone of whom we have a very high opinion, anti-climax sets in. The object of one's admiration does not always live up to it. That was not the case with Peter. I served for 8 years as a member of the Judiciary Committee under his leadership, and it was the legislative process at its best.

Peter Rodino had a gentle toughness. He was a man who was in person pleasant, calm, thoughtful. But there was a toughness both in terms of integrity and in terms of commitment to principle that informed that gentleness. And as previous Members have said, he was a great defender of the U.S. Constitution. He was a great believer that our job here was in part to take that marvelous document, the U.S. Constitution, with all of the wonderful principles it set forward, and to complete the job that had only been begun when the Constitution was adopted of extending the benefit of those principles to everybody in this society. Peter understood that the Constitution was a set of aspirations only imperfectly realized at first. And his job, more than anything else, was to help America realize those aspirations and help everybody in America realize those aspirations.

And one of the things that is always striking to me is when someone shatters stereotypes. And let us be clear, Peter Rodino, when he got here, faced a number of stereotypes. People make jokes about New Jersey. People make ethnic allusions. There is no point in denying this. Peter Rodino faced that. When Peter Rodino was slated to be the chairman of the committee and impeachment was pending, the rumor mill was very active: Oh, we cannot have Rodino do it. Who knows what there will be? Who knows if he can live up to it? Hey, he is a guy from Newark, New Jersey. What do you want to do here?

Well, this guy from Newark, New Jersey, who was the subject of a lot of wholly unjustified innuendo, took that job and did it as well as anybody could and did it, as the gentleman from New York, the previous speaker, pointed out, superbly, gave America a lesson in how not to pre-judge people, gave America a lesson in judging people by who they are.

Peter also, of course, in addition to that, was a dedicated believer in dealing with the racism that has sadly been the history of this country and in doing with whatever we could do legally to diminish it.

He was a great believer in civil liberties. I will tell my colleagues, in 1981 when I got here and I was originally going to go on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, as it was then called, because I wanted to deal with housing, Speaker O'Neill said to me, listen, would you go on the Committee on the Judiciary as an additional committee because Peter Rodino has a tough job. He is dealing with a lot of efforts to undermine the Constitution. There are a lot of proposals now to undo decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court protecting civil liberties.

I remember at the time saying to the Speaker's emissary, well, you know, I do not know if I want to do that. Those are a lot of tough issues. There are a lot of groups that will be very angry. The answer was, oh, of course, but they do not like you anyway, so you have nothing to lose. I went on that committee, along with a lot of others, including Pat Schroeder and Chuck Schumer, in a tough time under his leadership. I take pride in having been a defender of the constitutional principle and having been a defender of the rights of minorities and of free speech and other things that were under attack.

So I am very, very grateful to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for giving us this opportunity and this chance to honor this man. The thing I think best sums it up is he was a man who understood democracy, intellectually and instinctively; and no one I have served with in 25 years was better at making democracy work for the people of this country.

Mr. Chairman, I will not contest the gentleman from Pennsylvania on the intellectual level of some of his companions, but on other issues, I very much disagree with what he has had to say.

As to its relevance, yes, marijuana is and can be a drug with serious adverse consequences. So is OxyContin. So are many other substances that can only be legally administered by a physician with a prescription.

This is not a bill to make marijuana generally available. It is not a bill to put it in baby formula. It says, what is the rationale for singling out marijuana and saying that no doctor in no State can prescribe that even if that doctor feels that is the only way or the most effective way to alleviate pain? And I say most effective.

I would have hoped we would have learned something about trying to practice medicine here. They released today the autopsy, sadly, in that tragic case of Terri Schiavo. Apparently, according to the autopsy, not only was she in a persistent vegetative state, she was blind. The fact is that we had people on the floor of this House a few months ago directly controverting what we now know to be the medical facts.

Let us not do that again. Let us not say that we will decide on a political basis at the national level that no State is competent to regulate the practice of medicine in that State if they decide to allow a doctor to prescribe marijuana, because that is what we are talking about. The regulation of medicine has been a State function. Some States have decided to allow their doctors to prescribe marijuana. This has got a double safeguard. The State has to decide to do it, and then a physician has to decide to do it.

If there are physicians that you think are misusing this, and there are with substances. Rush Limbaugh got into trouble with OxyContin. That does not mean because something can be legally prescribed that you look away when it has been illegally used.

So let us treat marijuana the way we treat many, many other substances with far more impact on individuals. Let us leave this to the States and leave it to the doctors, and let us stop this practice, which I have commented on before, where most of us are not doctors, but try to play them on C-SPAN.

Mr. Speaker, one the ablest Members of the current Congress, Jim McGovern, has joined with one of the ablest Members in the history of the Congress, George McGovern to address the troubling issue of Iraq, and they make an eloquent case--with which I completely agree--that ``the United States must now begin an orderly withdrawal of our forces from this mistaken foreign venture.''

Mr. Speaker, it is our custom in introducing relevant material of this sort into this Record to put some gloss on the material entered. In this case, I feel absolutely no need to do this, because the authors--former Senator George McGovern and Congressman Jim McGovern-- do a superb job of explaining why we should pull out of Iraq. I will note that I join them not only in their basic argument, but in their note that as ``earlier opponents of the U.S. invasion of Iraq . . . we hoped that our concerns would be proven wrong.'' None of us take any joy in the fact that this has worked out so much worse than the Administration had predicted, but we must draw the consequences from this mistake and not continue with a seriously flawed policy which drains us financially, costs the lives of our military, and makes the situation in the Middle East worse rather than better in so many ways.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the essay by George McGovern and Jim McGovern from the Monday, June 6 Boston Globe be printed here.

[From the Boston Globe, June 6, 2005]

Withdraw From Iraq

(By George McGovern and Jim McGovern)

We were early opponents of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Nonetheless, once American forces were committed, we hoped

that our concerns would be proven wrong. That has not been

the case.

The United States must now begin an orderly withdrawal of

our forces from this mistaken foreign venture.

The justification for the war was based on false or

falsified information. What had been initially characterized

by the Bush administration as an uncomplicated military

operation has turned into a violent quagmire. Our leaders

underestimated not only the insurgency, but also the deep-

rooted ethnic divisions in Iraqi society.

There are no clear answers from the administration or the

Congress on how long our forces will need to stay in Iraq,

what the anticipated costs in human life and treasure will

be, or even what would constitute success.

Instead, many of our policymakers seem resigned to an open-

ended occupation. Former Defense Undersecretary Paul

Wolfowitz has told Congress that we will be there for at

least another 10 years. It is common to hear even some who

voted against the war say, ``now that we're there, we have no

choice but to stay.''

We very much disagree. Calls to maintain the status quo

echo the same rationale used to keep us in Vietnam. To those

who contend that we would weaken our credibility if we

withdraw, we believe that the Nation's standing would greatly

improve if we demonstrate the judgment to terminate an unwise

course.

Our continuing presence in Iraq feeds the insurgency and

gives the insurgents a certain legitimacy in the eyes of much

of the world. We know from our own history that armies of

occupation are seldom welcome.

There have been elections in Iraq, and yet it remains

unclear whether the different political, ethnic, and

religious factions want to work together.

One thing, however, is clear: Washington cannot determine

Iraq's destiny. It doesn't matter how many times Condoleezza

Rice or Donald Rumsfeld visit. It doesn't matter how many

soldiers we deploy. The myriad factions in Iraq themselves

must display the political will to demand a system of

government that respects the diversity that exists in their

country.

There are no easy answers in Iraq. But we are convinced

that the United States should now set a dramatically

different course--one that anticipates U.S. military

withdrawal sooner rather than later. We should begin the

discussions now as to how we can bring our troops home.

The United States should accelerate and pay for the

training of Iraqi security forces with the help of Egypt,

Jordan, and other Arab allies. We can begin drawing down

American forces to coincide with the number of trained Iraqi

forces. By that measure, we should bring 30,000 of our troops

home now.

President Bush should consult with the current Iraqi

government and other Arab nations about the necessity for an

Arab-led security force to complement the Iraqis in the short

term. Again, the United States should finance this effort.

We should also work with the United Nations to solicit

ideas and assistance from the international community on how

we can best disengage.

There are no guarantees that militarily withdrawing from

Iraq would contribute to stability or would not result in

chaos. On the other hand, we do know that under our

occupation the violence will continue. We also know that our

occupation is one of the chief reasons for hatred of the

United States, not only in the Arab world but elsewhere.

Wars are easy to get into, but hard as hell to get out of.

After two years in Iraq and the loss of more than 1,600

American soldiers, it is simply not enough to embrace the

status quo.

We are not suggesting a ``cut-and-run'' strategy. The

United States must continue to finance security, training,

and reconstruction.

But the combination of stubbornness and saving face is not

an adequate rationale for continuing this war. This is not a

liberal or conservative issue. It is time for lawmakers in

Washington--and for concerned citizens across the Nation--to

demand that this sad chapter in our history come to an end

and not be repeated in some other hapless country.

The path of endless war will bankrupt our treasury, devour

our soldiers, and degrade the moral and spiritual values of

the Nation. It is past time to change course.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the explanation given by the gentlewoman from New York, the major author of the bill. This House has previously passed the bill, and it did not emerge from the Senate. We hope that it does this year.

There were, if you go back 20 years or more, a number of restrictions on what various financial institutions can do. They have been outdated by technology, and passing this bill is one more step towards making sure that our financial institutions can in fact take full advantage of that.

There is one issue that is of some interest to many Members that I want to note. We have in some parts of the country institutions known as ``industrial loan corporations'' that have many of the functions of banks, but, unlike more traditional banks, have many of their assets in nonbanking activities. Hence the name ``industrial loan corporation.''

They have become somewhat controversial. The Federal Reserve system is very much unhappy with them. There have been other concerns about other entities getting into the banking business when they are primarily not banks, but doing this in various ways.

When the Congress passed the bill reorganizing the financial systems and removing a lot of the constraints on various financial institutions known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, it adopted a test that institutions had to be 85 percent financial in their total to get certain powers.

Working with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), I have put that formula into place, or the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and I together have, with the concurrence of most of the members of our committee, so that as we expand bank powers, whether it is for branching or, today, for interest on business checking or in other ways, we have maintained that principle that these new powers should only go to institutions that have an 85 percent financial entity.

This does not displace existing industrial loan corporations; indeed, it allows them to continue with whatever powers they get from the States where they are chartered, where they are State chartered, but it does say that as we expand banking powers, that expansion will be limited to institutions which would qualify under the 85-15 test.

That provision is in here, and with that provision and a couple of other minor changes, I think this is a piece of legislation that is very appropriate.

I would note that a question was raised about one aspect of it by people interested in land title. My colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) negotiated, I think, a very reasonable response to their question, and we now have a bill that I hope will pass overwhelmingly.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most troubling aspects of our current economic situation is the eroding position of a very large number of working people. While I was pleasantly surprised by the relatively high number of jobs created in April, the fact is that job creation during this recovery period has significantly lagged both historical experience in recovery, and the projections of the Bush Administration. Even more distressing is that those who have gotten jobs are being paid at rates which are historically low in real terms. Distressingly, inequality in our society is increasing even as our wealth increases, and as Alan Greenspan noted a year ago, a disproportionately large share of the increased wealth has gone to corporate profits and very little to compensation paid in wages and salaries.

In a recent New York Times article, Bob Herbert does an excellent job of documenting this problem, quoting from the excellent report from the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston. Andrew Sum, the Director of that center, is appropriately quoted in that article as noting that in the current economic phase, ``younger workers have just been crushed.'' I admire the work that Andrew Sum is doing and I appreciate Bob Herbert's giving this the broader exposure to which it is entitled. In furtherance of this need to understand what is happening in our economy today, I ask that Mr. Herbert's article be printed here.

[From the New York Times]

The Young and the Jobless

(By Bob Herbert)

There were high fives at the White House last week when the

latest monthly employment report showed that 274,000 jobs had

been created in April, substantially more, than experts had

predicted.

The employment bar has been set so low for the Bush

administration that even a modest gain is cause for

celebration. But we shouldn't be blinded by the flash of last

Saturday's headlines. American workers, especially younger

workers, remain stuck in a gloomy employment landscape.

For example, a recent report from the Center for Labor

Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston tells us

that the employment rate for the nation's teenagers in the

first 11 months of 2004--just 36.3 percent was the lowest it

has ever been since the federal government began tracking

teenage employment in 1948.

Those 20 to 24 years old are also faring poorly. In 2000,

72.2 percent were employed during a typical month. By last

year that percentage had dropped to 67.9 percent.

Even the recent modest surge in jobs has essentially

bypassed young American workers. Gains among recently arrived

immigrants seem to have accounted for the entire net increase

in jobs from 2000 through 2004.

Over all, only workers 55 and up have done reasonably well

over the past few years. ``Younger workers,'' said Andrew

Sum, the center's director, ``have just been crushed.''

Whatever the politicians and the business-booster types may

be saying, the simple truth is that there are not nearly

enough jobs available for the many millions of out-of-work or

underworked men and women who need them. The wages of those

who are employed are not even keeping up with inflation.

Workers have been so cowed by an environment in which they

are so obviously dispensable that they have been afraid to

ask for the raises they deserve, or for their share of the

money derived from the remarkable increases in worker

productivity over the past few years. And from one coast to

the other, workers have swallowed draconian cuts in benefits

with scarcely a whimper.

Some segments of the population have been all but

completely frozen out. In Chicago, only one of every 10 black

teenagers found employment in 2004. In Illinois, fewer than

one in every three teenage high school dropouts are working.

Last month's increase of 274,000 jobs was barely enough to

keep up with the increase in the nation's working-age

population.

``The economy is growing and real output is up,'' said Mr.

Sum, who is also a professor at Northeastern. ``But the

distribution of income, in terms of how much is going to

workers--well, the answer is very little has gone to the

typical worker.''

The squeeze on the younger generation of workers is so

tight that in many cases the young men and women of today are

faring less well than their parents' generation did at a

similar age. Professor Sum has been comparing the standard of

living of contemporary families with that of comparable

families three decades ago.

``Two-thirds of this generation are not living up to their

parents' standard of living,'' he said.

College graduates today are doing better in real economic

terms than college graduates in the 1970's. But everyone else

is doing less well. ``If you look at families headed by

someone without a college degree,'' said Professor Sum,

``their income last year in real terms was below that of a

comparable family in 1973. For dropouts it's like 25 percent

below where it was. And for high school grads, about 15 to 20

percent below.''

It shouldn't be surprising that the standard of living of

large segments of the population is sinking when employers

have all the clout, including the powerful and unwavering

support of the federal government. Workers can't even get a

modest increase in the national minimum wage.

Globalization was supposed to be great for everyone. Nafta

was supposed to be a boon. Increased productivity was

supposed to be the ultimate tool--the sine qua non--for

raising the standard of living for all.

Instead, wealth and power in the United States has become

ever more dangerously concentrated, leaving an entire

generation of essentially powerless workers largely at the

mercy of employers.

A remark by Louis Brandeis comes to mind: ``We can have

democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth

concentrated in the hands of a few. But we can't have both.''

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey bringing this forward and I join with him and my colleague from Massachusetts in regretting that we are at this pass. I understand that the committee is not motivated by any animus against the Coast Guard or any failure to appreciate the need for what it does. While we are going to have this amendment withdrawn at this point, obviously we all fervently hope that the administration will come into compliance with the very reasonable request of the committee so that by the time this bill ultimately is signed into law it includes these necessary funds for the Coast Guard.

I represent the most prosperous fishing port in the United States, the city of New Bedford, town of Fairhaven. The value of the catch there is very significant. They make a significant contribution to the economy, the fishermen do. They also provide a very healthy source of food. At a time when we are worried about the health of what people eat, the health effects, we are worried about obesity, fishing is one source of about the healthiest food people can eat. Unlike most other foods, people do not often realize that the seafood that is brought to their table involves some risk of life. People do not get killed growing vegetables or even herding cattle, but people get killed fishing, particularly out in the deep sea. We have had tragic instances recently in the North Atlantic of these extraordinarily brave men losing their

lives not through their own fault but weather and other factors.

We need to do a lot to deal with that. We need to change regulations that give them incentives to be out at unsafe times. We need to do better training. We need a whole range of things. But no matter how hard we try to avoid accidents, given the nature of fishing, they will happen. Sadly, the Coast Guard today is not as well equipped as it can be and should be to deal with those accidents.

My colleague from Massachusetts alluded to a controversy over a failure of a helicopter at a time when someone needed a rescue. The Coast Guard maintains that it would not have made any difference. We do not know whether it did or did not, but even accepting their argument, we should not be having that debate. Families mourning the loss of a brave fisherman should not be further tormented by the possibility that it was a failure in our own government that led that to happen.

Having the Coast Guard do everything that it physically is capable of doing in these rescue situations is an essential part of an overall safety program, and obviously that cannot happen without there being the funds that we need. I urge the administration strongly to comply with the committee's request because it would be morally unacceptable for us to let this bill get signed into law with this gap still there.

I appreciate the leadership of the committee in trying to get it resolved. They will have our support in doing that. We hope that when this bill is finally signed, those of us who represent fishermen will be able to tell them with some sense of confidence that we are, in fact, doing everything that we can to save them in this difficult situation.

Madam Speaker, a couple of weeks ago I was disturbed to read of reports that people at the Air Force Academy were inappropriately and improperly putting pressure on cadets to follow certain religious practices. In this particular case, cadets who did not follow a certain brand of Christianity were being ridiculed and being criticized, and the allegations were that they were even being pressured by officials of the Academy to follow this specific set of religious practices.

Obviously, we should create a situation in which people of any religious persuasion are free at the Academy to follow that. But for young men and women who were sent to the Academy to learn to lead our Air Force and defend our country in that important institution to be subjected to religious

pressures, religious ridicule and criticism because they do not particularly follow one or another religion is terrible public policy, and, of course, unconstitutional.

When I heard that, my reaction was to give the Air Force the benefit of the doubt. I wrote a letter to the Air Force Academy and the Secretary of the Air Force asking that the Air Force be looking into this, and I had read that in fact they were. So I thought, well, I hope we are talking with reasonable people. These allegations sounded to me like things that no reasonable person would allow to go forward. Let us see what happens. I decided I would wait to see what the Air Force did.

Well, I am not waiting anymore, because the Air Force has acted. They have made things worse. They have done some things that confirm the view that I and others have that there is something seriously wrong.

Captain Melinda Morton, an Air Force chaplain, number two in the chaplaincy there, was just transferred, well ahead of when she was supposed to be transferred, to Okinawa.

Now, I mean no disrespect to Okinawa. For the people that live there, it is home, and it is a wonderful home. It has a lot of advantages. But when you are the number two in the chaplaincy in Colorado and you are sent to Okinawa very suddenly, it is clearly meant to be a rebuke, and the reason that the number two in the chaplain's office was sent to Okinawa was because she was supporting the criticisms.

According to a New York Times article, which I will include for the record, she was told by the Chief Chaplain, Colonel Whittington, after a critical report on this subject from a team from the Yale Divinity School, she was asked to denounce the report and defend the Academy. But she said she could not do that because she agreed with the report. It was about 2 weeks later that she was transferred to Okinawa.

So we have here not just a refusal to deal with inappropriate abuse of people on religious grounds, but a punishment of a very brave officer, a woman of integrity, a chaplain, a member of the clergy, who in pursuance of her faith and her obligations and her understanding of the Constitution refused to say something that she thought untrue about a report.

When intelligent people say silly things, it generally means that they do not want to tell you the truth. The explanation the Air Force gives for sending her to Okinawa makes no sense at all. I do not believe we have put in charge of the Academy people incapable of making sense, so when they tell us things that are just silly, I think they are covering up.

They gave a convoluted argument about, well, the other guy is going to leave, so she is going to have to leave afterwards, and, therefore, they both have to leave together. It makes zero sense. If anything, you would probably say if a new person was coming in, it would be better to have her there to help train him.

Then we were also told by both the New York Times and the Associated Press that Colonel Whittington, the chaplain who apparently asked her to denounce the report, and when she disagreed with him and said she could not denounce the report she agreed with, and the report said there had been inappropriate religious pressure, he apparently was part of an effort to penalize her. We are told that he could not give an interview to the New York Times and the AP because he was being interviewed by the Air Force Special Study Panel.

Now, I doubt very much that the Air Force Special Study Panel is grilling him 18 hours a day, or even 10 hours a day. In other words, there is obviously no conflict between being interviewed by this panel and also talking to the press.

Why do they not let the chaplain talk to the press? Because they are afraid if he told the truth it would be embarrassing, is my inference. If there is a different argument, let them give it to us.

Madam Speaker, we should note that among those who brought these allegations to light originally is a proud Air Force Academy alumni, Michael Weinstein, who worked for the Reagan Administration, whose son is now there, who said he has spoken to 117 people at the Academy who validate the accusation that there is inappropriate pressure put on people and that people are subject to disadvantages if they do not follow a particular religious view.

The Air Force has got to reverse this pattern of religious oppression at the Academy, of religious abuse, ``oppression'' may be too strong; it has got to stop the transfer of a brave woman for speaking out; and they have got to take seriously a problem, rather than make it worse.

Madam Speaker, I include for the record the May 15, 2005, New York Times article entitled ``Air Force Chaplain Says She Was Removed for Being Critical.''

[From the New York Times, May 25, 2005]

Air Force Chaplain Says She Was Removed for Being Critical

(By Laurie Goodstein)

A chaplain at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs who

has accused her superiors of using their positions to promote

evangelical Christianity among the cadets says she was fired

from an administrative job because of her outspokenness and

was given orders to ship out to Japan.

An Air Force task force, meanwhile, has finished an

investigation at the academy into charges by the chaplain and

others that officers there were inappropriately proselytizing

the cadets.

The academy chaplain, Capt. MeLinda Morton, said she had

disagreed with her boss, the academy's chief chaplain, Col.

Michael Whittington, after a critical report by a team from

the Yale Divinity School was released to the news media in

April. The report, dated July 2004 and which she helped

write, found that some academy chaplains were insensitive to

the religious diversity of the cadets.

Captain Morton said her boss asked her to denounce the

report and defend the academy, but she told him she agreed

with it. She said that about two weeks later, on May 4, she

received an e-mail message from Colonel Whittington

dismissing her from her position as his administrative

assistant, or ``executive officer.'' However, she remains a

chaplain, retains her rank and earns the same salary.

``That is pretty plainly, in my mind, retribution,''

Captain Morton said. ``That makes a big point on a staff. The

point is, `We don't regard Mel as trustworthy and we

humiliate her by firing her.' However, in the whole scope of

things, that's pretty minor to what's going on in the

academy.''

She also said that in March she received orders to transfer

to Okinawa, and from there could be deployed to Iraq or

Afghanistan. Captain Morton said she was surprised because in

December she was told by Colonel Whittington that she would

be staying at the academy through summer 2006 to see several

projects through. At the time, Captain Morton was developing

a sensitivity training program for the academy and was

involved in pastoral care for cadets who were victims in a

sexual abuse scandal that swept the academy in 2003.

An academy spokesman, Lt. Col. Laurent Fox, said in an

interview that Captain Morton's dismissal as executive

officer and her reassignment to Okinawa were entirely

routine, and not retribution. He said that Captain Morton was

removed from her position in order to make way for a new

executive officer because Colonel Whittington was leaving the

academy in June and Captain Morton is leaving in July.

``We don't see this as a dismissal,'' Colonel Fox said.

``This kind of a transition is a normal process that happens

in squadrons across the Air Force.''

Colonel Fox said he knew nothing about a meeting that led

to a quarrel over the Yale Divinity School report. A request

to interview Colonel Whittington was denied because he was

being interviewed by the task force investigating the

religious climate at the academy. The task force is expected

to release a preliminary report on May 23.

Complaints about the religious climate at the academy first

surfaced after fliers were passed out in the dining hall

advertising a showing of the movie ``The Passion of the

Christ.'' An alumnus of the academy, Mikey Weinstein, grew

concerned after he visited his son at the school last year

and learned that he had been subject to repeated religious

slurs because he is Jewish.

Mr. Weinstein, who served in the Reagan administration,

said yesterday that he became enraged and set out to see if

others had similar experiences. He said he has now spoken

with 117 academy cadets, staff members and faculty members

who complained about religious intimidation and proselytizing

at the academy. Of the 117 people, 8 are Jewish, one is an

atheist, about 10 are Catholic and the rest are

nonevangelical Protestants.

His son was interviewed by the task force this week, Mr.

Weinstein said. He said he was not interviewed by the task

force, even though ``I have a boatload of information,'' he

said.

``I can't reveal people's names, but I thought it might be

useful,'' he said.

Mr. Speaker, many Americans continue to be gravely embarrassed by our country's failure to address in a forthright manner the abuse of human rights which occurred at Abu Ghraib prison under our control. Clearly the great majority of Americans who have served in Iraq are innocent of any such pattern of abuse, but it is simply a defiance of common sense and the facts to hold accountable only a handful of low-level military personnel on the scene, while exonerating those in charge who are in various degrees culpable for either encouraging or allowing this to happen.

Bob Herbert's column in the New York Times on April 27 makes this point forcefully, noting that ``under Commander in Chief George W. Bush, the notion of command accountability has been discarded. In Mr. Bush's world of war, it's the grunts who take the heat. Punishment is reserved for the people at the bottom. The people who foul up at the top are promoted.''

Mr. Speaker, our country deserves better of its leadership, and so do the men and women in the armed services who should not see a small number of their comrades held accountable for their actions while those in charge suffer no such penalty. I ask that Bob Herbert's thoughtful discussion of this matter be printed here.

On Abu Ghraib, the Big Shots Walk

(By Bob Herbert)

When soldiers in war are not properly trained and

supervised, atrocities are all but inevitable: This is one

reason why the military command structure is so important.

There was a time, not so long ago, when commanders were

expected to be accountable for the behavior of their

subordinates.

That's changed. Under Commander in Chief George W. Bush,

the notion of command accountability has been discarded. In

Mr. Bush's world of war, it's the grunts who take the heat.

Punishment, is reserved for the people at the bottom. The

people who foul up at the top are promoted.

It was a year ago today that the stories and photos of the

shocking abuses at Abu Ghraib prison first came to the

public's attention. It was a scandal that undermined the

military's reputation and diminished the standing of the U.S.

around the world.

It would soon become clear that the photos of hooded, naked

and humiliated detainees were evidence of a much larger

problem. The system for processing, interrogating and

detaining prisoners at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq was

dangerously out of control, and the command structure

responsible for it had collapsed. Detainees were beaten,

tortured, sexually abused and, in some instances, killed.

Many detainees should never have been imprisoned at all, as

they had committed no offenses.

So what happened? A handful of grunts were court-martialed,

a Marine major was cashiered, and the Army plans to issue a

new interrogation manual that bars certain harsh techniques.

There was no wholesale crackdown on criminal behavior.

We learned last week that after a high-level investigation,

the Army had cleared four of the five top officers who were

responsible for prison policies and operations in Iraq. The

fifth officer, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski of the Army

Reserve, had already been relieved of her command of the

military police unit at Abu Ghraib. (She has complained, and

not without reason, that she was a scapegoat for the failures

of higher-ranking officers.)

As Eric Schmitt wrote in The Times: ``Barring new evidence,

the inquiry by the Army's inspector general effectively

closes the Army's book on whether the highest-ranking

officers in Iraq during the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, should

be held accountable for command failings described in past

reviews.''

This is the way atrocities are dealt with in Mr. Bush's

world of war. The higher-ups responsible for training,

supervising and disciplining the troops--in other words, the

big shots who presided over a system that ran shamefully

amok--escaped virtually unscathed.

The abuses at Abu Ghraib, which seemed mind-boggling at the

time, turned out to be symptomatic of the torture, abuse and

institutionalized injustice that have permeated the Bush

administration's operations in its so-called war against

terror. Euphemisms like rendition, coercive interrogation,

sleep adjustment and waterboarding are now widely understood.

Yes, Virginia, it is the policy of the United States to

kidnap individuals and send them off to regimes skilled in

the art of torture.

Two things are needed. First, a truly independent

commission, along the lines of the bipartisan 9/11 panel,

should be set up to thoroughly investigate U.S. interrogation

and detention operations and make recommendations to correct

abuses.

Second, the U.S. government should make it clear, beyond

any doubt, that torture and any other inhumane treatment of

prisoners is wrong, just flat wrong, and will not be

tolerated under any circumstances.

``In our contemporary world, torture is like the slave

trade or piracy was to people in the 1790's,'' said Michael

Posner, executive director of Human Rights First, which is

suing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over the prisoner

abuse issue. ``Torture is a crime against mankind, against

humanity. It's something that has to be absolutely

prohibited.''

If the president made it clear that men and women up and

down the chain of command would be held responsible for the

abuses that occur on their watch, the abuses would plummet.

Instead, the message the administration has sent is that its

demands for accountability will be limited to a few hapless,

ill-trained grunts.

The big shots who presided over behavior that has shamed

America in the eyes of the world can count on this

president's embrace.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Connecticut, good friends who kept debate alive so I could get here. I was in a hearing where I am the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, and I appreciate the chance to speak.

Let me say to my friend from Chicago that we are delighted to have lent you this very distinguished jurist, Judge Leighton. He has come back home now. Chicago was a nice place to visit, and the visit did last many decades; but I am delighted to have had the chance to respond to the unanimous vote of the City Council of New Bedford urging me to introduce this legislation. I appreciate the committee's processing it.

I think, as the gentleman from Illinois mentioned, I am delighted to be here on behalf of a Republican nominee to the Federal bench. Judge Leighton was an appointment of President Gerald Ford. Judge Leighton is a man who, in his own right as a jurist, as a distinguished legal scholar, deserves recognition. It does not, I think, diminish one iota, but rather enhances him, to note that he is not simply an extremely distinguished judge, a man who, born into difficult circumstances to immigrant parents who did everything they could to provide him with the opportunities; a man whose education was interrupted by service in World War II, so he overcame a number of obstacles and, despite that, graduated from law school and earned an appointment to the Federal bench and earned a great reputation on the Federal bench.

In addition, it is important to note, given the nature of this country and the fact that we are a country that has drawn enormous strength from immigration, from people coming from all over the world, the thing about immigrants is that they are not a random sample of the population from which they come. Immigration is itself an act that shows entrepreneurship and energy. Lazy people on the whole do not immigrate to foreign countries where they do not even speak the language. The very fact of immigration is a sign of a degree of eagerness to better yourselves, to work hard for yourselves and your family.

So I do not think it is an accident that our national prosperity and thriving democracy has been strengthened by our being the place where some of the most energetic and entrepreneurial people from all over the world come.

Judge Leighton's parents were in that category. They come from the Island Republic of Cape Cabo Verde, and it is a country which has recently been recognized by this administration for its commitment to democracy and its vigorous support for economic development by being in the very first group of countries that qualified for the Millennium Challenge Account.

Judge Leighton was in that first wave of Cape Verdean immigrants, a man born in 1912; and I do note for the record that Judge Leighton is exactly 2 days younger than my mother, as I looked at his birth date; and he is one of the people who was in the lead in this particular ethnic group, people of Cape Verdean descent, taking their place in America, as so many groups before them and after them continue to do. It is a source of great pride to the people of Cape Verdean descent and to the people of the Republic of Cape Verde that a man born to Cape Verdean immigrant parents rose by dint of his own intelligence and commitment to this very distinguished position.

I am particularly grateful that July 5 is Cape Verdean Independence Day, and I will be marching in a parade then, as I always do, sponsored by a very important organization, the Cape Verdean Veterans Association. Cape Verdeans have, from the moment of their coming here, been strongly patriotic Americans and they have a strong tradition and identification with the armed services.

I am very proud that one of the people who works for me in Massachusetts, Ervin Russell, is a Vietnam veteran, an in-country Vietnam veteran of Cape Verdean descent who is very active with that organization; and on July 5, we are looking forward to, after completing this parade run by the Cape Verdean Veterans Association, dedicating this post office; and we will have, I think, the ambassador and others, because this is a celebration of the triumph of a man. It is also a vindication of the American immigrant tradition, because it is a symbol of what the immigrants to this country have given to this country.

Judge Leighton has done enormous service to America, and he is being honored at the request, as I say, of the city council and the mayor of the city of New Bedford, both for his own work and as a symbol of the Cape Verdean immigration to this country. So I very much appreciate what my colleagues have done.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the gentleman from Alabama's letting us butt into his conversation.

I want to speak in favor of the bill. It is an example of the things that we do that are not controversial and are not exciting to a lot of people but are, in fact, very important for the proper functioning of the economy. This is an upgrading and an updating of the deposit insurance system. It is widely supported by financial institutions. There is a difference of opinion on one aspect, the coverage increase, but I will say that, while I support the bill as written and support the coverage increase, it is my hope that however that

winds up, it will not lead to the demise of the bill. The bill is an important piece of legislation for improving the functioning of the banking system.

I just also want to point out two things: There is a mistaken assumption abroad that somehow things have gotten so poisonous here that nothing ever happens. There are issues on which we disagree vehemently, but the fact that this bill is coming forward from the Committee on Financial Services with overwhelming support from the committee, disagreement on one specific point, is a refutation, that I think people ought to know that, no, it is not the case that we have been so embittered towards each other that we cannot function. This bill comes forward with support on both sides.

It also, as was noted by the gentleman from New York who spoke earlier, contains a section that what we call lifeline banking. And not all banks in the world were having parties when that was included, but it is an important point to be made here. It is our job to pass legislation and to do things that help the financial system function. Banks are good institutions. They perform useful roles in our society. But there are also needs that individuals have, particularly lower income individuals, that are not going to be automatically taken care of by even the best functioning market, and our job, in part, is to advance measures that help the institutions function but at the same time provide a degree of fairness, a kind of minimum support, for people who will not automatically benefit from the general going forward.

This bill is an example of that, and I want to say that the inclusion of this lifeline provision is very important. I appreciate the majority's accommodating the concern that people had, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), who pushed hardest for this; so I hope that this package will go forward as an example that even at times that are very contentious, we can work together on legislation that bridges some gaps and advances the system.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield, I just would say sometimes we have debates about where does wealth begin and what is middle class, et cetera. I guess I would differ with the gentleman from California that if you have $100,000 in the bank, you are a little guy, but if you have $130,000, you are rich. I think that unduly compresses the middle class. I think much more is being made, frankly, over $30,000 than is deserved.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, in a very impressive display of bipartisanship, I am now going to yield some of our time to the manager of the bill for the majority.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) as long as he does not talk about the Rohrabacher amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for his great graciousness in what he had to say. And let me say in deference to the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) a great baseball leader, if you notice, I yielded to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who then came back to this side to thank us.

If you're scoring this, it is 3 to 6 to 3, I believe is the appropriate scoring.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). She has been very much in the forefront overseeing this issue. Along with her, I and others have written some letters to the Federal Reserve. We have been staying very much on top of this.

The gentlewoman has been performing a real service, and I appreciate the cooperation of the chairman. I look forward to our being able to work together to make sure that consumers are protected.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) simply multiplies his mathematical difficulty. He said, well, when I said if you have $100,000 under his calculations, you are a little guy but if you have 130,000 you are rich. He says, but what if you have 10 times $130,000? The answer is, well, what if you have 10 times 100,000? Thirty percent is still 30 percent.

So the fact is that he is ascribing to a 30 percent increase a qualitative impact that simply will not stand up to analysis. He says, well, you can have 10 accounts and you would have 1.3 million. Yes, and you could have 10 accounts and have 1 million.

So the difference is really quite small. I must say even when the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), with whom I agree here, talked about this will save people, $30,000 is not going to make a big difference one way or the other. I believe it is a step in the right direction.

First of all, understand that much of the argument for this comes from smaller institutions who fear the negative competitive effect of the doctrine of ``too big to fail.'' By the way, the large institutions are on the whole not for this. The large institutions feel that if people are worried about a bank failure affecting their accounts, if they have more than the insured amount they will put it in the largest possible institution to the detriment of smaller institutions. I do not think it is a good thing for there to be that kind of competitive pressure exercised against smaller banks. That is why they are very strong advocates of this.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I thank the gentleman.

The other thing I want to do is to disagree very strongly with the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) on the causality of the savings and loan crisis.

I do not believe, having served here at the time, and I have seen very few analyses that said the deposit insurance issue was effective, it increased the cost but it was not the cause of the failure. And those are really two quite distinct things.

The causes of the failure I believe were two. First of all, we imprudently loosened substantially what savings and loans, thrift institutions could invest their money in. So they became invested in things that were much less insured. They were not just doing houses; they were doing a lot of open land, et cetera.

Secondly, this Congress in 1981 passed tax legislation that greatly inflated the value of real estate and then in 1986 undid it. If you wanted a dictionary example of going from one extreme to another, it was the treatment of real property and real estate in the 1981, 1986 tax act. So we kind of baited and switched people.

In the 1981 act we gave, I say ``we'' because I voted against the 1981 act. I vote for the 1986 act, but Congress gave people incentive to invest in real estate. And because of the tax advantages, it made sense to buy an empty building and not have anybody in there in some cases literally because of the tax advantages. But in 1986 we rationalized the Tax Code, but we did it too rapidly and there were people caught in the middle. I believe those were the two major causes.

I agree that increasing deposit insurance raised the cost of it, but I do not think it is causal. Just to go back, I think, frankly, it is the least sophisticated saver who we protect by raising this rate.

The gentleman said correctly, you can open 10 accounts, 12 accounts, 13 accounts; but more sophisticated people unfortunately, the deposit insurance limit is not very effective against them; but there are people of less sophistication, less ability to be mobile, and they are the ones who do it. I do think if your life savings is $130,000 you are rich. And I think trying to protect the least sophisticated people that way and to preserve against unfair competitive pressures on smaller institutions justifies the bill.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

May I ask the gentleman a question. Did someone keep the gentleman from offering that amendment? Why did the gentleman not offer that amendment? It is the gentleman's amendment. Is the gentleman criticizing me for his amendment?

If the gentleman thinks his amendment should be different, make it different.

Well, we will deal with this one; and when the gentleman brings that amendment up, we will deal with that one.

I want to make it very clear. I did not stop the gentleman from offering any amendment he wanted to.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think we would all agree that that would certainly justify at least three accounts. One for each child.

Mr. Speaker, it is deeply discouraging that no high-ranking military or civilian defense officials are being held accountable for the terrible abuses of basic human rights that occurred at the prison in Abu Ghraib. The editorial from the Washington Post, which I hereby insert into the Record, makes the point very well. The failure of the Bush Administration to hold any high-ranking official in any way accountable for this grave lapse is in itself a deeply regrettable example of dereliction of duty.

[From the washingtonpost.com, Apr. 23, 2005]

Top Officers in Abu Ghraib Case Cleared

(By Robert Burns)

Washington.--Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, faulted by some for

leadership failures in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal,

has been cleared by the Army of all allegations of wrongdoing

and will not be punished, officials said.

Three officers who were among Sanchez's top deputies during

the period of the prisoner abuse in the fall of 2003 also

have been cleared. An Army Reserve one-star general has been

reprimanded, and the outcome of seven other senior Army

officer cases could not be learned Friday.

Sanchez, who became the senior U.S. commander in Iraq in

June 2003, two months after the fall of Baghdad, has not been

accused of criminal violations. It is unclear, however,

whether the controversy surrounding his role in Iraq will

stand in the way of his earning a fourth star. He is nearing

the end of his tenure as commander of the Army's 5th Corps,

based in Germany.

After assessing the allegations against Sanchez and taking

sworn statements from 37 people, the Army's inspector

general, Lt. Gen. Stanley E. Green, concluded that the

allegations were unsubstantiated, according to officials

familiar with the details of Green's probe.

Green reached the same conclusion in the cases of two

generals and a colonel who worked on Sanchez's staff.

The 'officials who disclosed the findings spoke only on

condition of anonymity because the results on Sanchez and 11

other officers who were the subject of Green's scrutiny have

not yet been publicly released and Congress has not been

fully briefed.

The question of accountability among senior Army and

Defense Department officials who were in positions of

responsibility on Iraq detention and interrogation policy has

been hotly debated in Congress. Some Democrats accuse the

Pentagon of foisting all the blame onto low-ranking soldiers.

In a statement issued Friday that did not mention Sanchez

or other specific cases, Sen. John Warner, chairman of the

Senate Armed Services Committee, said that as soon as all

Pentagon assessments of accountability are complete he will

hold a committee hearing ``to examine the adequacy of those

reviews'' and to hear senior civilian and military officials

address the issue.

Warner, R-Va., said he strongly agrees with one

investigation report that concluded last year that commanders

should be held accountable for their action or inaction and

that military as well as civilian leaders in the Pentagon

``share this burden of responsibility.''

The office of Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, the ranking

Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, declined to

comment on the matter.

Asked about public expectations of punishment for senior

officers associated with Abu Ghraib, the Army's chief public

affairs officer, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, said the Army

went to great lengths to make its investigations thorough and

fair.

In addition to clearing Sanchez, the Army inspector general

has determined that there should be no punishment given to

Sanchez's former top deputy, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski; to

Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast, who was Sanchez's intelligence chief

in Baghdad; or to Col. Mark Warren, Sanchez's top legal

adviser at the time.

In an interview Friday, three senior defense officials

associated with the Green investigations cited mitigating

circumstances in the Sanchez case, including the fact that

his organization in Iraq, known as Combined Joint Task Force

7, initially was short of the senior officers it required.

They also cited the upsurge in insurgent violence shortly

after Sanchez took command and the intense pressure the

military faced in hunting down Saddam Hussein.

The three officials spoke on condition of anonymity.

A separate investigation by a panel headed for former

Defense Secretary James Schlesinger concluded that Sanchez

should have taken stronger action in November 2003 when he

realized the extent of problems among the military

intelligence and military police units running Abu Ghraib.

A subsequent Army investigation, made public last summer in

what was called the Kern-Fay-Jones report, concluded that

although Sanchez and his most senior deputies were not

directly involved in the bases at Abu Ghraib, their ``action

and inaction did indirectly contribute'' to some abuses.

Sanhez and Wojdakowski were cited in the Kern-Fay-Jones

report for failure to ``ensure proper staff oversight of

detention and interrogation operations'' in Iraq,

specifically at the Abu Ghraib prison where Iraqi detainees

were physically abused and sexually humiliated by military

police and intelligence soldiers in fall 2003.

Mr. Speaker, nothing that we do is more important than trying to provide a fair start in life for young people born into difficult economic circumstances. The Head Start and Early Head Start programs are therefore among the most valued that we have. I was pleased but not surprised to be informed that the version of these programs run by the Fall River Community Action Group, Citizens For Citizens, received the Excellence Award from the Department of Health and Human Services. Citizens For Citizens is an extraordinarily creative organization, run by dedicated people with a deep commitment to helping others. This recognition of the Head Start program is just an example of the generally excellent work that Citizens For Citizens does, and on the occasion of this, I want to congratulate Director Neil Lynch and all of those who work with him in this important endeavor.

Mr. Speaker, the Fall River Herald News last month ran an article about this program and the good work that it does. It is important for people to see examples of successful federal programs, and I therefore ask that this article from the Fall River Herald News be printed here.

[From the Herald News, Mar. 24, 2005]

CFC Head Start Program Receives Program of Excellence Award

Fall River.--Citizens for Citizens' Head Start and Early

Head Start program has once again received the U.S.

Department of Health's Program of Excellence Award following

an extensive study of all aspects of the operation by a team

of 12 federal reviewers.

Neil Lynch, CFC Head Start director, said that only two

other programs in Massachusetts received the Program of

Excellence Award. The award was presented at a regional

conference in Nashua, N.H.

The reviews are conducted every three years and the highest

rating is a repeat of the study results in 2001. The federal

reviewers determined that CFC Head Start meets and surpasses

every federal performance standard.

``The team from the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services closely scrutinized us in how effectively we were

performing in the areas of education, quality health and

nutrition, disabilities, social services, transportation and

parent involvement,'' said Lynch.

He noted that the federal reviewers also met with community

partners, including the public schools, social service

agencies, parents, policy council members and the CFC board.

``I am very proud of our staff for receiving the Program of

Excellence Award for the second consecutive time,'' said

Lynch.

``The staff and the parents of Head Start children devote a

great deal of effort into the programs we provide in order to

ensure the highest quality of early childhood education

possible,'' he added.

CFC operates 21 Head Start classes in Greater Fall River

and an Early Head Start and home-based program on Second

Street.

The federal reviewers determined CFC Head Start and Early

Head Start accomplished the following:

--All curricula in place are based upon sound child

development principles and presented in creative learning

methods.

--Parents are actively involved in curriculum planning

through a policy council, which is informed of current

decisions affecting service delivery, program policies and

procedures.

--Successful family partnership built.

--Rapport between staff and parents created trust and

helped identify individual needs.

--Collaboration is excellent between area health and dental

providers, schools, colleges and pediatric specialists.

--General layout of classrooms are safe, confortable and

fully accessible.

Mark A. Sullivan Jr., executive director of CFC, said Head

Start is a valuable learning resource for children and that

since its inception it has successfully prepared millions of

children to enter school on a level playing field.

``I am very proud of the administrators of CFC's Head

Start, the staff and especially the parents who are closely

involved with the program to ensure their children get a

quality learning experience,'' said Sullivan.

Mr. Speaker, Theodore Olson, most recently Solicitor General under President George Bush from June 2001 until July of last year, is without question one of the leading members of the American Bar, and a very important figure in conservative politics. Mr. Olson understands that there not only is no conflict between an energetic political and intellectual conservatism and a deep respect for an independent judiciary, but that in fact the two are, as American history shows, wholly complementary, and in some ways reinforcing.

On April 21, Mr. Olson published a cogent, well-argued essay in the Wall Street Journal headlined Lay Off Our Judiciary. The article is an impressive rebuttal to some of the irresponsible, thoughtless attacks that have been made both on specific judges and on the notion of an independent judiciary. Clearly, Mr. Olson makes these arguments out of a genuine commitment to the institution of an independent judiciary, and not because he takes one side or another in a particular dispute that has found its way to the courts or to Congress. As he notes, ``calls to investigate judges who have made unpopular decisions are particularly misguided, and if actually pursued, would undermine the independence that is vital to the integrity of judicial systems.''

Mr. Olson goes on to be very critical of various aspects of the nomination battles now occurring in the Senate. I do not agree with everything he says here, but the importance of his overall affirmation of the centrality of an independent judiciary to our system of governance is so relevant to current political debates that I ask that it be printed here.

[From the Wall Street Journal, Apr. 21, 2005]

Lay Off Our Judiciary

(By Theodore B. Olson}

A prominent member of the Senate leadership recently

described a Supreme Court justice as ``a disgrace.'' An

equally prominent member of the leadership of the House of

Representatives on the other side of the political aisle has

characterized another justice's approach to adjudication as

``incredibly outrageous.'' These excoriations follow other

examples of personalized attacks on members of the judiciary

by senior political figures. So it is time to take a deep

breath, step back, and inject a little perspective into the

recent heated rhetoric about judges and the courts.

We might start by getting a firm grip on the reality that

our independent judiciary is the most respected branch of our

government, and the envy of the world.

Every day, thousands and thousands of judges--jurists whose

names we never hear, from our highest court to our most local

tribunal--resolve controversies, render justice, and help

keep the peace by providing a safe, reliable, efficient and

honest dispute resolution process. The pay is modest, the

work is frequently quite challenging, and the outcome often

controversial. For every winner in these cases, there is a

loser. Many disputes are close calls, and the judge's

decision is bound to be unpopular with someone. But in this

country we accept the decisions of judges, even when we

disagree on the merits, because the process itself is vastly

more important than any individual decision. Our courts are

essential to an orderly, lawful society. And a robust and

productive economy depends upon a consistent, predictable,

evenhanded, and respected rule of law. That requires

respected judges. Americans understand that no system is

perfect and no judge immune from error, but also that our

society would crumble if we did not respect the judicial

process and the judges who make it work.

We have recently witnessed tragic violence against judges,

their families and court personnel in Chicago and Atlanta.

These incidents serve as reminders of how vulnerable the

judiciary is to those who may be aggrieved by judges'

decisions. Violence and intimidation aimed at judges is

plainly intolerable; all of us can, and should, be

unequivocally unified on the proposition that judges must be

protected from aggrieved litigants and acts of terrorism. The

wall between the rule of law and anarchy is fragile; if it is

penetrated, freedom, property arid liberty cannot long

endure.

This is not to say that some judges don't render bad

decisions. Arrogant and misguided jurists exist, just as such

qualities may be found in the rest of the population, and our

citizens and elected representatives are fully justified in

speaking out in forceful disagreement with judges who

substitute their personal values or private social instincts

for sound jurisprudential principles. But the remedies for

these aberrations consist of reasoned, even sharp, criticism,

appeals to higher courts, and selection of candidates for

judicial positions that respect limits on the roles of

judges.

But, absent lawlessness or corruption in the judiciary,

which is astonishingly rare in this country, impeaching

judges who render decisions we do not like is not the answer.

Nor is the wholesale removal of jurisdiction from federal

courts over such matters as prayer, abortion, or flag-

burning. While Congress certainly has the constitutional

power, indeed responsibility, to restrict the jurisdiction of

the federal courts to ensure that judges decide only matters

that are properly within their constitutional role and

expertise, restricting the jurisdiction of courts in response

to unpopular decisions is an overreaction that ill-serves the

long-term interests of the nation. As much as we deplore

incidents of bad judging, we are not necessarily better off

with--and may dislike even more--adjudications made by

presidents or this year's majority in Congress.

Calls to investigate judges who have made unpopular

decisions are particularly misguided, and if actually

pursued, would undermine the independence that is vital to

the integrity of judicial systems. If a judge's decisions are

corrupt or tainted, there are lawful recourses (prosecution

or impeachment); but congressional interrogations of life-

tenured judges, presumably under oath, as to why a particular

decision was rendered, would constitute interference with--

and intimidation of--the judicial process. And there is no

logical stopping point once this power is exercised.

Which member of Congress, each with his or her own

constituency, would ask what questions of which judges about

what decisions? Imagine the kinds of questions asked

routinely in confirmation or oversight hearings. How can

those questions be answered about a pending or decided case?

And what if a judge refused to testify and defend his

reasoning about a particular decision? Would an impeachment

or prosecution for contempt of Congress follow? Either would

be unthinkable. Federal judges are highly unlikely to submit

to such a demeaning process and, if push came to shove, the

public would undoubtedly support the judges.

No discussion of the judiciary should close without

reference to the shambles that the Senate confirmation

process has become. It does no good to speculate about how or

when the disintegration began, which political interest has

been the most culpable, or the point at which the appointment

of judges became completely dysfunctional. That sort of

debate is both endless and futile. The only hope for an end

to the downward spiral is for the combatants to lay down

their arms; stop using judicial appointments to excite

special interest constituencies and political fund-raising;

move forward with votes on qualified, responsible and

respected nominees so that those who have the support of a

majority of the Senate can be confirmed, as contemplated by

the Constitution; and remove the rancor and gamesmanship from

the judicial selection process.

We expect dignity, wisdom, decency, civility, integrity and

restraint from our judges. It is time to exercise those same

characteristics in our dealings with, and commentary on,

those same judges--from their appointment and confirmation,

to their decision-making once they take office.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the honesty of the gentleman. Let me suggest the way that he can reunite himself: help us vote down the rule. That will not jeopardize the bill. When the rule is voted down, the Rules Committee will have to do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, this rule to begin with is further evidence of the contempt which the majority of this House has for something called democracy.

We have heard in a few brief minutes from both a Republican and a Democrat their unhappiness that important issues will not be brought forward.

Why? Well, we work probably all day today; we may work a half day tomorrow. So in this week when we could have worked many days and debated many amendments at length, we will have some not discussed at all and others discussed for a handful of minutes because this majority cannot be bothered with anything as cumbersome to them as open debate and having Members have to record themselves.

One of the issues which is given inadequate time, it is given some time but inadequate time, I think 10 minutes, is an outrageous effort by the majority to further diminish the ability of elected State governments to defend their own citizens.

State governments are sometimes popular around here and sometimes not. When State governments, democratically elected governors and legislatures, appear to be obstacles to letting major players in the energy industry get whatever they want, then they are to be diminished, they are to be dismissed, they are to be thrown out of the process.

With regard to liquefied natural gas terminals, a very important issue, an issue which has become more important because of their relevance to the terrorism threat which security officials tell us is the case, this bill takes a limited State role in the siting of these and makes it a nonexistent State role.

The ability of governors and legislatures--I have a Republican governor in my State who does not like a proposal to site an energy plant in a wholly inappropriate place, way up river in the city of Four Rivers, which the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and I share. This governor's objections will be muffled. So I guess I should congratulate you on the bipartisanship of your contempt for democracy. It is not just our colleague from Tennessee who could not get amendments through; my Republican governor cannot get his voice heard.

This rule and this bill ought to be defeated.